Here is how Augustine read Genesis

[Vance]

Despite the attempt by ID to present this debate as a scientific one, I think for most of us Christians it comes down to defending our reading of Genesis. But are we reading it correctly?

I have written an article on how Augustine dealt with Genesis and it shows a very humble, flexible approach that we can all learn from. You can read it here:

http://euangelion.wordpress.com/200...read-genesis-a-lesson-from-augustine/#more-84

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts, either here or there. That is a Christian blog for Christians, however, so non-Christians can respond here.

Thanks!

 

[MrSnow]

Augustine had some very wise words right there. It would behoove Evangelicalism to give some serious thought to what he had to say.

 

[QuantaCura]

I just read that long passage in his "Confessions" Thanks for posting this. I also read how he said that the literal approach caused him problems and prolonged his association with the Manichees (who held the God of the OT to be evil). It wasn't until St. Ambrose explained the spiritual meaning of certain passages for him that He saw the light.

 

[Biblewriter]

There is nothing in the Bible that has ever been proven false.

Evolution has been accepted as scientific fact, but only by those that choose to believe it. In my personal education as a scientist, I saw many allegations that evolution was established as fact, but not even one unchallenged proof.

By unchallenged, I do not mean not challenged by creationists. I mean not challenged by experts in the field in question. There is not even one supposed proof of evolution that will stand up to rigorous examination.

The professor of my Senior genetics course publicly derided me for not believing in evolution, but in private he told his lab assistant (whom, unbeknown to him, I was dating) that evolution was actually not a very good explanation of the facts.

The head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science once wrote that almost every young man who started out neither to prove nor to disprove evolution, but to examine the facts and decide for himself, ended up deciding, not only that evolution was probably not correct, but that it was absolutely impossible.

As one example, the geological record does not show gradual change. It shows a long series of stable ecosystems that each appeared suddenly, flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and disappeared as suddenly as they had appeared, only to be suddenly replaced by a different stable ecosystem. Realization that this assertion is correct finally led to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which in my opinion is the evolutionist's straw that they grasp as they drown in scientific fact. A desperate attempt to salvage their beloved theory when the facts prove it implausible.

So don't confuse Biblical fact with pseudo-scientific gobbledegook.

 

[Vance]

But, Biblewriter, that post does not address the concepts raised in the OP at all. What do you think of Augustine's approach?

 

[elcapitan]

Biblewriter, circa 1650:

There is nothing in the Bible that has ever been proven false.

Heliocentricism has been accepted as scientific fact, but only by those that choose to believe it. In my personal education as a scientist, I saw many allegations that heliocentricism was established as fact, but not even one unchallenged proof.

By unchallenged, I do not mean not challenged by geocentricists. I mean not challenged by experts in the field in question. There is not even one supposed proof of heliocentricism that will stand up to rigorous examination.

The professor of my Senior astronomy course publicly derided me for not believing in heliocentricism, but in private he told his assistant (whom, unbeknown to him, I was courting) that heliocentricsm was actually not a very good explanation of the facts.

The head of the Royal Academy once wrote that almost every young man who started out neither to prove nor to disprove heliocentricism, but to examine the facts and decide for himself, ended up deciding, not only that heliocentricism was probably not correct, but that it was absolutely impossible.

As one example, the astronomical observation does not the Earth revolving around the sun in a circular orbit. It shows that the orbits of the planets are certainly not a perfect circle. Realization that this assertion is correct finally led to the theory of elliptical orbits, which in my opinion is the heliocentricist's straw that they grasp as they drown in scientific fact. A desperate attempt to salvage their beloved theory when the facts prove it implausible.

So don't confuse Biblical fact with pseudo-scientific gobbledegook.

Quite clearly, your argument has precedent. It's a blatant lie to say that there is nothing in [a literal interpretation of] the bible that has ever been proven false. You, of course, have ignored Augustine despite the fact that he resolved this issue long before we had evidence for heliocentricism or evolution.

P.S. If you want to debate the scientific (rather than theological) merits of evolution, you're better off in the debate forum.

 

[Vance]

el capitan, that is SO perfect.

And the fact that anyone would talk about "proofs" of a scientific theory shows that they have no clue how science works, since theories are not proven, simply shown to be more or less likely based on the degree of evidence.

 

[busterdog]

Biblewriter, circa 1650:

Quite clearly, your argument has precedent. It's a blatant lie to say that there is nothing in [a literal interpretation of] the bible that has ever been proven false. You, of course, have ignored Augustine despite the fact that he resolved this issue long before we had evidence for heliocentricism or evolution.

P.S. If you want to debate the scientific (rather than theological) merits of evolution, you're better off in the debate forum.

I have heard the "blatant lie" argument, but not quite so aggressively. At every turn, the answer was completely satisfactory to support inerrancy. There are a number of minor copyist/translation issues. But, no biggie. Don't expect many of us to recant on the basis of "fightin' words."

 

[elcapitan]

There are a number of minor copyist/translation issues.

O really?

Interesting hypothetical. Good thing scripture validates itself.

 

[busterdog]

O really?

Vance seems like a nice guy. I think I will avoid encouraging anything to muck up his thread.

 

[Vance]

Right, I am really interested in hearing what people think about Augustine's approach to Genesis. How do you all feel about:

- His thoughts on literalism?
- His concepts of science's impact on our interpretation?
- His thoughts on dogmatism?
- His ultimate conclusions regarding how God created?

I would really like to hear what my fellow Christians think about what this important early Church Father had to say. Most of us accept his teaching on original sin, etc, but how do you feel about his approach to Scripture, and Genesis in particular?

 

[Spade48d]

Hello Vance,

[deleted parrot statement about evolution].

Your post on Augustine was great and shows the man's keen logic and depth of perception. We certainly should be interpreting scripture in like manner. We seem to try to reinvent the wheel when great minds have already given us " blue prints" and "Cliffs Notes" to help us search for the truths found in scripture.

Augustine's explanations were very clear to me however, I got a little confused by the author's explanations of what Augustine was saying. For instance. To paraphrase what I got from Augustine's first points is as follows---We discern the spiritual through faith but what is assumed to be literal must conform to factual evidence if it becomes available even if contrary to our assumptions.

The authors explanation confused me by adding something about agreeing with somebody else on spiritual faith issues. I didn't hear Augustine telling me to agree with someone else's faith based spiritual discernment if that is what the author was insinuating. I got confused by it.

 

[Vance]

Spade, I think we are in agreement on what Augustine said, but I think I may have confused you a bit in the way I wrote it. I think this is the section you are talking about:

Augustine wrote:
“38. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and light was made,” one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of spiritual light in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until unerring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance. . . ."

And I then commented in the article:
"Here is what I think Augustine is saying here: when we read a particular text, often two people will agree that there is a particular spiritual or theological truth, based on our faith, but may differ as to whether a literal fact was meant as well. We should, then, agree on the theological truth. As for the material truth, there is nothing wrong with accepting this as well, unless and until there is evidence which shows that it can not be the true reading. When that happens, we know that the material interpretation was never part of Scripture to begin with."

As to the theological issues, we should agree, even if we do not agree on the material (literal v. figurative) issues. You and I may not agree on whether Genesis is meant to be read literally as creation in six 24 hour periods, but we can definitely agree that Genesis is telling us that God created all things, God created Man in His image, Man did something to result in a Fallen state and is in need of redemption, etc.

And then, Augustine, goes on to say that if we hold to a literal view, and then the facts come along and show that it was not meant to be literal, we should abandon that literal view without abandoning the theological points.

 

[Spade48d]

Hello Vance,

OOPS, Sorry, I didn't pay enough attention to see that you are the author or my reply would have been more personal.. Thanks for the clarification. I am no longer confused for a change ;-)

As to the theological issues, we should agree, even if we do not agree on the material

I still believe that there is considerable disagreement by many on what they spiritually discern That was why I originally got confused by your addition of two people agreeing. A good example is original sin. I happen to disagree with Augustine on original sin. I am obviously not alone in my belief but I bring it up only because it is a good example I thought of to make my point.

What I took from the Augustinian excerpts you posted really resonated with me on discerning spiritual truth through the grace of our faith granted by Him. Thank you

 

[Vance]

Yes, I see your point, but I think we need to read that comment of his in the context of his whole literal/spiritual distinction. I think he was saying that it is IMPORTANT that we try to come to agreement on the theological import of the text, regardless of whether we disagree on the "material" or "scientific" meaning, or even whether there IS a material meaning. I don't think he is trying to say that we must adopt or theological interpretation to anyone else's as a matter of course. I think he is prioritizing the issues: theological conclusions are simply more important than material. In other words, the WHO and WHY are more important than the HOW and WHEN.

At least that is how I take his comments.

 

[MrdeRastignac]

Actually I like how the 'viewpoints' of both Augustinus (taking the Latin name here) and the OP on inerrancy/literal etc. reflect what I wrote in 2 posts in an inerrancy thread, without prior knowledge of either source.

Although I read in the OP text that Augustinus was contradicting certain dogmas. I would like to know if that could be backed up though...
There are still some RCs who make the definitions of heresy, the Church/ Corpus Christi/ Bride so strict that they say:
"If you do not believe in one of the dogmas, there is no salvation.", which seems to be not in line with the Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) and several other official sources within the Vatican.

I thought of using the 'semper idem' (=always the same) argument of the RC Church to help them see that those individuals are wrong, but I didn't want to start a discussion in the RC forums and I don't know the works of the Church Fathers sufficiently to come up with something anytime soon.
But if you would be able to prove from their works and confessions that one of the Church Fathers and/or (RC) Saints are opposed to certain things that were made dogma later, these RC individuals I was talking about would basically be denying their own Saints/Church Fathers salvation by the 'semper idem' argument.

 

[Vance]

Ah, I was using "dogmatic" in the layman's use of the term, not in the RC's "official" sense. I am not saying that Augustine was arguing against any particular official "dogma" of the Church, but more generally against "dogmatic" positions in interpretation when no dogmatism is necessary.

 

[Spade48d]

Yes, I see your point, but I think we need to read that comment of his in the context of his whole literal/spiritual distinction. I think he was saying that it is IMPORTANT that we try to come to agreement on the theological import of the text, regardless of whether we disagree on the "material" or "scientific" meaning, or even whether there IS a material meaning. I don't think he is trying to say that we must adopt or theological interpretation to anyone else's as a matter of course. I think he is prioritizing the issues: theological conclusions are simply more important than material. In other words, the WHO and WHY are more important than the HOW and WHEN.

At least that is how I take his comments.

Me too. I got the same message from Augustine but idiot me got confused when I thought that you were implying that agreement as a matter of course.

Again, thanks for bringing his keen insights to us for review and example. They struck a very strong accord with me.

 

[Spade48d]

But if you would be able to prove from their works and confessions that one of the Church Fathers and/or (RC) Saints are opposed to certain things that were made dogma later, these RC individuals I was talking about would basically be denying their own Saints/Church Fathers salvation by the 'semper idem' argument.

I am not sure if this is the kind of thing you are looking for but Justin Martyr believed in Annihilationism while St. Jerome and St Gregory of Nyssa both believed in some sort of universal restoration.

 

[Vance]

Spade, as someone who writes a lot (I am an attorney), I have always held that in almost every case, if there is a misinterpretation of a writing, it is the fault of the writer in not making himself clear enough. So, my bad.

Of course, that rule does not apply to God, since we as readers, misinterpret His writing all the time, and it is always our fault!